Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91.  Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets.
2. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
3. New York's Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq.
4. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28.
5. You can read Jane Doe's complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright.
6. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a case regarding the proper jurisdiction of federal circuit courts of appeals with respect to rules issued under the Clean Water Act.
In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Agency (the “Agencies”) issued a final rule intended to clarify the definition of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act (the “Clean Water Rule”). Petitioner associations and companies filed suit in various federal district and appellate courts to challenge the Clean Water Rule, claiming that the definitional changes improperly expanded the Agencies’ regulatory jurisdiction and dramatically altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration on water resource concerns. Many of the suits were eventually consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Clean Water Rule, Petitioners contended, is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and was improperly adopted without satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Petitioner National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”), which had brought its challenge in federal district court, then intervened in the Sixth Circuit litigation and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that judicial review must first take place in district court and that this case did not fall within the judicial review provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit ultimately rejected this argument and concluded that it could exercise jurisdiction over requests for review of the Clean Water Rule under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1369(b)(1)(F). That provision provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the federal circuit courts of appeals to review an action “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342, [the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System]....”
The question presently before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that it had jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) to assess a Clean Water Rule that did not actually “issu[e] or den[y] any permit,” but rather defined the waters that fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act.
To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Adler, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Representative Jamie Raskin about the Republican remedy for Trump's unfitness for office: The 25th Amendment. Plus, she speaks with ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson about his recent reporting which revealed that the high court tends to make staggering errors of fact in opinions. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Representative Jamie Raskin about the Republican remedy for Trump's unfitness for office: The 25th Amendment. Plus, she speaks with ProPublica's Ryan Gabrielson about his recent reporting which revealed that the high court tends to make staggering errors of fact in opinions. 

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump.  What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law?  Listen and find out! We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco. Next, we take a quick look at New York's use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas's Second-Chance Law Firm! In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the "Trump Dossier" and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  Is it time to "Lock Her Up?" After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding class action lawsuits.  What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey's edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, "Titletown Sound Off."
2. This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey.
3. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law.
4. We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage's question.
5. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
6. Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality. Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick's recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what's going to happen next.  Even if you're not a football fan, we think you'll love this conversation. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton's "damned emails," which we first discussed way back in Episode 13.  (If you haven't listened to that episode, you probably should; it's really good!) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You too can read Colin Kaepernick's arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here.
2. We first discussed Hillary Clinton's "damned emails" and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13.
3. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey's statement.
4. Finally, you should absolutely check out Kluwe's new card game, Twilight of the Gods, by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107.  What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings?  Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office.  Does this violate the Constitution?  Is there anything we can do about it?  The answer might surprise you! After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump's Travel Ban. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was on Episode 60 of the "Atheists on High" podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed the Allergan patents for Restasis back in Episode 107, along with no other controversial things at all.
2. The court's opinion regarding Allergan's joinder of the native American tribe can be found here; and the main opinion on the validity of the patent can be found here.
3. This is a link to the Vox article by Prof. Gluck alleging that Trump has violated the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution.
4. The Nixon-era case we discuss is Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).
5. This is the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645 ("EO-3").
6. Here is a link to the Hawaii opinion; and here is a link to the Maryland opinion.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard reargument in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class-action lawsuit by aliens challenging their continued detention under civil immigration statutes without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing or determination that otherwise justified their continued detention. After several rounds of litigation in U.S. district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the district court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the alien class members. Under the injunction, the government must provide any class member who is subject to “prolonged detention”—six months or more—with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify the denial of bond. On subsequent appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed all aspects of the injunction except with respect to aliens detained under § 1231(a) (aliens who have been “ordered removed”).
Although the Supreme Court heard argument on the case last term, it then requested supplemental briefing on the following questions and set the case for reargument this October: (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.
To discuss the case, we have Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.